He went in front of the Judicial Committee, on national TV, and not only ranted about some insane Clinton conspiracy, but then clearly declared "as we all know, in the political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around."

He should have been disqualified simply on that speech. I have absolutely no faith in his ability or desire to be impartial.

"Insane Clinton conspiracy." Insane is ignoring reality when it slaps you in the face! The quid pro quo conspiracies while secretary of state alone are easy enough for a grammar schooler to trace. They are fantastically blatant! They also lend a HUGE amount of credence to the narrative regarding all of their other crimes. You know, all of the ones where evidence disappeared, as well as many many witnesses. Having backbone enough to admit you're wrong is an admirable character trait. Grow some.

Crooked Hillary Clinton--- spent her hole life mintin'---coin for her own perceived realm. If she can keep her sheep flocked for just a handful of tics of the clock she may well have succeeded herself to the helm. And as this path of ill gotten gain has begotten such misery & pain---so too will the greater flock be flocked again & again--- to levitate mankind's bane. She hasn't assended so close to the throne--- without contorting herself prone-- in deference to those she calls master--she'll take what they give--- her will but a sieve -- & she'll play out the role they cast her.

Easy chair rhetoric from a clintonian. Anyone too lazy to look at the overwhelming preponderance of incriminating evidence about clinton criminality must be itching in torment from the need to be sheared. Masochistic.

No witnesses, no proof. Just that he has rave reviews from the law community. If you had watched the testimony and read some of his rulings, you would have known this. It is amazing how hateful democrats are towards a good, honest man and his family. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. I am NOT a republican , just someone who loves her country. Hope you never get accused of something you never did.

There you go with your lazy ways Brian. I did go back and line up a handful of articles backing my charges. However I feel that the onus is on you to to find the same and try to refute them. Otherwise I would be doing your work for you, and that modus operandi has obviously been detrimental to your ability to do research and reference building. And promotes laziness.

This is getting a little off topic here and I'm quite I'm lost Daniel. You are reference incriminating evidence and conspiracies on Clinton and yet here we are down the road and where is she now? No real research needed for that one. Did I miss something there?

You should try this one: go to google.com (or any search engine you desire) and put "where are the Clinton now" in the search box and hit enter. I'm pretty sure you are not going to see prison stripes in any of those articles.

I completely understand that every single Supreme Court justice will interpret the Constitution through the lenses of their political philosophy, and that the party in charge will nominate SC candidates based on that party's political philosophy. Democratic administrations will select SC candidates who are more liberal than Republican administrations.

Where Kavanaugh went off the rails with was his railing about a Clinton conspiracy coupled with "you will pay" ("goes around comes around") statement. Even the ABA, which initially gave the conservative Kavanaugh top ratings as a jurist, (appropriately) pulled back after his insane rant.

I have absolutely no faith that Kavanaugh will interpret the Constitution simply through his conservative views. He has shown he has a temper, can be petty, childish, and unbalanced in his response to adversity, and I sincerely believe he will base his votes on putting the screws to those he feels dared oppose him.

Nope, we'll chuck this one to the trash bin right away. Not even worth the waste of time time to read. The Daily Wire is and always will be a trash site in the same bin as The Breitbart News Network. Instead of actually doing any leg work they will reference and reuse content from other sites that they complain (And you would think they hate MSM?!?!) about then pick and choose content and contort it out of context until it makes sense to their readers. The comments on these sites leaves a bad taste in my mouth every time I read an article from them.

This one is written by Marc Thiessen. He wrote speeches for George W. Bush and is a conservative contributor for many news outlets. Quite the fan of waterboarding :/ This is just his opinion piece on why Clinton Foundation donations gave the state department access to large donors. You can dig the same stuff up on snopes.com (good site, check it out) with way more detail. I'm guessing Thiessen here didn't bother with checking around like that and instead referenced articles that he read from the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal (Because I guess some of his readers don't do that?).

I read this one a few times over and it makes perfect sense for me to agree to disagree with the writers opinion on this one.

Both of the opinion pieces worth a read seem to spell out the same conclusion to me. That is that there is no solid proof, just suspicion and/or circumstantial evidence. They both pretty much left the assumption that there was special treatment if you put money into the Clinton pockets. Nothing really meaty in those pieces other than what I would say is wishful thinking that so far has gone nowhere like the "Lock her up!" chant.